Most Overrated General?

[thomas aagaard]

Grant had all the resources he wanted and always could replenish his losses.

Myth.
If he had unlimited resources, then why did he not have 500.000 men in the field against Lee?
Why did he pull the heavy artillery units from Washington if he could just have used infantry? why did the army not keep it original size?

Yes, he had more supplies and could better replace men than Lee could. But by this point in the war, a replacement = a conscript something that was a clear political problem. And a replacement was usually not that motivated and with no experience. And putting green units up against veterans was really not a good idea.

 

[67th Tigers]

Myth.
If he had unlimited resources, then why did he not have 500.000 men in the field against Lee?
Why did he pull the heavy artillery units from Washington if he could just have used infantry? why did the army not keep it original size?

Because he couldn't create troops out of thin air. He could however strip other places voraciously, and he fielded 199,088 PFD during the overland campaign once reinforcements are figured in (using 30 Apr '64 trimonthly reports), sightly more than 2:1 once Lee's reinforcements are taken into account (actually 2.33 times). The only other general to ever get odds like that was Hooker at Chancellorsville.

The sheer quantity of Union manpower shoveled into the overland campaign dwarfs all other campaigns, and so raises the criticism of Grants generalship. Admittedly it is a fairly stupid one, and instead Lincoln should be criticised for not doing this sooner.

Grant went into the overland campaign with a number of advantages that his predeccesors lacked. The most obvious one is he didn't have Halleck over him, remembering that Halleck criticised Grant's crossing of the James and would have forbidden it if he was allowed.

 

[67th Tigers]

Reading this thread about Grant specifically, I've been thinking, was Grant over-rated, or did he just have excellent press after the war through today?

He has certainly been allowed to set his own agenda, and his memoirs are treated without the skepticism they deserve.

In fact when one steps back his war record is very mixed, and had he been relieved in July/August '64, which he very well could have been, as he was seen as an ignominious failure who had become "McClellanised" in siege lines and almost allowed Washington to be captured by Early, he would simply be another in a long line of so called "failures". Only 8-9 months more of slow siege would bring success and vindication.

 

[67th Tigers]

What is so questionable about Bonekemper or Nolan?

Bonekemper is producing straight up lawyers briefs. There is no actual true analysis, just something that looks like analysis in order to bamboozle the reader into thinking he is reading something other than a hagiography (Grant) or hatchetography (Lee or McClellan).

Frankly I wouldn't believe Bonekemper if he told me the sky is blue. His works are strong candidates (with Bobrick's Master of War) for the worst "history" books written in my lifetime.

 

[Elennsar]

Because he couldn't create troops out of thin air. He could however strip other places voraciously, and he fielded 199,088 PFD during the overland campaign once reinforcements are figured in (using 30 Apr '64 trimonthly reports), sightly more than 2:1 once Lee's reinforcements are taken into account (actually 2.33 times). The only other general to ever get odds like that was Hooker at Chancellorsville.

Is that figure for Grant's PFD accounting for units whose enlistments expired (A subtraction the only Hooker and Meade have previously had to deal with to any significant effect), or are we just tallying up the total PFD of every unit that took part in the Overland campaign?

Bonekemper is producing straight up lawyers briefs. There is no actual true analysis, just something that looks like analysis in order to bamboozle the reader into thinking he is reading something other than a hagiography (Grant) or hatchetography (Lee or McClellan).

Care to provide an illustration of this ("something that looks like analysis") as applies to Grant?

As stated previously in this thread I haven't read any of his work, but if people are going to criticize it, "Take my word for it that it sucks." is a singularly unconvincing argument.

 

[Rebforever]

Meade was the commander of the Army of the Potomac, and thus he's the one who had tactical control of the army, meaning he is the one who ordered the attacks at Cold Harbor.

Meade told his wife he had command on the field the entire day on June 3. I think he would know whether or not he commanded that day.

Grant is the one who put a stop to the attacks.

Then why did Grant say he wished he had not ordered the Cold Harbor attack in his Memoirs?

 

[Elennsar]

Then why did Grant say he wished he had not ordered the Cold Harbor attack in his Memoirs?

Grant's exact wording:
I have always regretted that the last assault at Cold Harbor was ever made.

(page 462, chapter LV of my copy)

Not quite the same thing as wishing he had never ordered it.

 

[Rebforever]

Little more.

http://www.bartleby.com/1011/56.html

 

[CSA Today]

Grant's exact wording:
I have always regretted that the last assault at Cold Harbor was ever made.

(page 462, chapter LV of my copy)

Not quite the same thing as wishing he had never ordered it.

Saying he wish he hadn't ordered it and saying he regretted having done so is very close to the same thing.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Dear Elennsar,
the wording is as you said. But, if Grant didn't want the attack to be made, he could stop its execution. Instead, he told Meade to "vigorously exploit any successful part of the assault". Didn't sound even hesitating to order the assault.
Thanks,
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Rebforever]

Dear Elennsar,
the wording is as you said. But, if Grant didn't want the attack to be made, he could stop its execution. Instead, he told Meade to "vigorously exploit any successful part of the assault". Didn't sound even hesitating to order the assault.
Thanks,
Civil War Scholar.

Good words there.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

?


Not as foolish as relying on Gordon Rhea.
http://www.gordonrhealaw.com/

What's your problem with Gordon?

Gordon is an old friend. Nobody is more thorough with research than he is. Instead of insulting someone you don't know because you don't like what he does for a living, why don't you instead tell us what your issue is with his work?

Otherwise, you continue to prove that Lincoln was absolutely correct when he said, "It's better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

 

[KeyserSoze]

Keyser Soze,
You have told me what Rhea has stated. I again ask you, why do the Official Records of the US War Department say the figure was 13000?

Because their record keeping was wrong. You are aware, I assume, that even today the casualty figures from the rebellion are being revised? Modern methods of research, more thorough examination of records and muster roles and reports, all are tools that are used to examine and re-examine every facet of the war and to develop an ever more clear picture of the conflict.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Dear Eric,
Nobody doubted that Rhea did research. Yet, the results he published are coming in contradiction with every other source. This is problematic itself. Moreover, his staunch supporters in the thread claim that it is foolish to rely on other historians who don't support his claim.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Rebforever]

What's your problem with Gordon?

Gordon is an old friend. Nobody is more thorough with research than he is. Instead of insulting someone you don't know because you don't like what he does for a living, why don't you instead tell us what your issue is with his work?

Otherwise, you continue to prove that Lincoln was absolutely correct when he said, "It's better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

You call on one person for proof and others you let off the hook! Cash is not doing what you desire of this poster!

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

I'm curious what primary sources you guys are thinking of when you say Sheridan.

How about the flagrant lie in the very first sentence of his memoirs?

How about that 1-12-1 record in battle as commander of the Cavalry Corps and then flagrantly lying about it?

How about the demonstrated hypocrisy?

That's just some of it.

My sources are fully set forth in my book, Little Phil. Trust me when I tell you that this man was a terrible, horrible human being who does not deserve the adulation he receives.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Dear Eric,
Nobody doubted that Rhea did research. Yet, the results he published are coming in contradiction with every other source. This is problematic itself. Moreover, his staunch supporters in the thread claim that it is foolish to rely on other historians who don't support his claim.
Civil War Scholar.

Gordon can back his numbers up.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Because he couldn't create troops out of thin air. He could however strip other places voraciously,

You are just supporting my point.
Grant could not "always replace loses". The Union more or less had the max number of troops in the field it could have. So when ever he lost a man, he had to pull it from somewhere else... and the fact that he lost large numbers of 3 year veterans did hurt him very badly.

Please note that Iam not sayin that Grant did not have a clear advantage. Just that the statement from Civil War Scholar is not correct: "Grant had all the resources he wanted and always could replenish his losses"

And clearly he didn't replenish his looses from some inexhaustible source. but by moving troops from somewhere else. And that almost cost him dearly when Washington was attacked.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Yes, Keyser Soze, research still continues. Yet, I wonder, if all sources both of the particular era and of 150 years after Sumter state a number of casualties and agree, hoe will today's research prove it is false?
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Rebforever]

Gordon can back his numbers up.

Why hasn't he done more than just opinions is my question? That is what you asked the poster. Show proof instead of opinion, right?